Ohio Rev. Code » Chapter 163
Ohio Revised Code

Ohio Rev. Code § 163.08 (2026)

Answer of owner

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORCcodes.ohio.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Effective:
July 1, 1983
Latest Legislation:
House Bill 373 - 115th General Assembly
PDF:
Download Authenticated PDF
 

Any owner may file an answer to such petition. Such answer shall be verified as in a civil action and shall contain a general denial or specific denial of each material allegation not admitted. The agency's right to make the appropriation, the inability of the parties to agree, and the necessity for the appropriation shall be resolved by the court in favor of the agency unless such matters are specifically denied in the answer and the facts relied upon in support of such denial are set forth therein, provided, when taken in time of war or other public exigency, imperatively requiring its immediate seizure or for the purpose of making or repairing roads, which shall be open to the public, without charge, an answer may not deny the right to make the appropriation, the inability of the parties to agree, or the necessity for the appropriation. A petition for appropriation, filed by the director of transportation, which contains a declaration and journalization of his intent to construct a state highway or interstate highway, shall constitute a presumption that such appropriation is for the purpose of making or repairing roads which shall be open to the public without charge. At a hearing on an issue whether a taking sought by the director of transportation is for the purpose of making or repairing roads open to the public without charge, a set of construction plans made by or for the director and showing the proposed use of the property in connection with the construction or repair of such a road is presumptive evidence of such purpose, notwithstanding that no money has been appropriated for such construction or repair.

An answer shall be served in accordance with Civil Rule 12. If the agency involved in the action is a private agency, no more than one extension of the time authorized by Civil Rule 12 for serving an answer shall be granted pursuant to Civil Rule 6, and that extension shall not exceed thirty days.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 39 cases (8 in the last 5 years), 1968–2025 · leading case: State ex rel. Horwitz v. Court of Common Pleas, 603 N.E.2d 1005 (Ohio 1992).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State ex rel. Horwitz v. Court of Common Pleas, 603 N.E.2d 1005 (Ohio 1992). · cites it 8× “08 of the Revised Code, and none of the matters set forth in division (B) of this section is specifically denied, the court shall fix a time within twenty days from the date the answer was filed for the assessment of compensation by a jury.” Basically, R.”
State ex rel. Bohlen v. Halliday (Slip Opinion), 2021 Ohio 194 (Ohio 2021). · cites it 4× “R.C. 163.08. In the first phase of the ensuing proceeding, the court must hold a hearing and rule on the denials.”
Weir v. Wiseman, 443 N.E.2d 152 (Ohio 1982). · cites it 13× “Following filing of the petition for appropriation, and notice to the affected landowners, R.C. 163.08 establishes the right of the property owner to contest the appropriation: “Any owner may file an answer to such petition.”
Columbia Gas v. Bailey, 2023 Ohio 1245 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 8× “Bailey”) (collectively, “Appellees”) failed to assert specific denials under R.C. 163.08 and instead asserted Affirmative Defenses which cannot trigger a necessity challenge under R.”
Wray v. Wymer, 601 N.E.2d 503 (Ohio Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 4× “Appellant’s first assignment of error asserts that, pursuant to R.C. 163.08, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to resolve the issue of the agency’s right to make the appropriation other than in favor of the agency.”
City of Cleveland v. City of Brook Park, 659 N.E.2d 342 (Ohio Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 12× “R.C. 163.08 establishes what issues the owner of the property can contest in the answer to the petition for appropriation.”
City of Middletown v. Campbell, 486 N.E.2d 208 (Ohio Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 4× “The answer period in eminent domain or appropriation cases, enunciated in R.C. 163.08, has been held to be jurisdictional (i.”
Ohio Power Co. v. Burns, 2021 Ohio 2714 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 4× “20CA19, 20CA20, 20CA21, 20CA22 16 and R.C. 163.08 require verification of the petition and the answer.”
City of St. Marys v. Dayton Power & Light Co., 607 N.E.2d 881 (Ohio Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 4× “08 of the Revised Code and any of the matters relating to the right to make the appropriation, the inability of the parties to agree, or the necessity for the appropriation are specifically denied * * * the court shall set a day * * * to hear such questions.”
Ohio River Pipe Line, LLC v. Henley, 761 N.E.2d 640 (Ohio Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 3× “R.C. 163.08 outlines the answer a property owner makes.”
Ohio River Pipe Line, LLC v. Gutheil, 761 N.E.2d 633 (Ohio Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 4× “We consider together ORPL’s second and third assignments of error, which allege that the trial court erred by refusing to enforce the strict pleading requirements of R.C. 163.08, and that the trial court erred in failing to conduct the hearing mandated by R.”
City of Cincinnati v. Bossert Mach. Co., 243 N.E.2d 105 (Ohio 1968). · cites it 2× “” Section 163.08, Revised Code, designates the owner’s pleading as an “answer.”
Show all 39 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.